2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Transcript of 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
1/21
1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Liberty Legal Foundation;
John Dummett;
Leonard Volodarsky;
Creg Maroney,
Appellants
CASE NO: 12-16729
Democratic National Committee;
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
Appellees
APPELLANTS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C) the
Plaintiff/Appellants in the above-named case move this Court for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the Defendant/Appellees from issuing any letters,
certificates, or other document to any Secretary of State of any state, any agent
thereof, or any other official of any state, indicating that Barack Obama is qualified
to hold the office of President or that the Democratic Party has selected Mr. Obama
as its Presidential candidate, or requesting that any state place the name of Mr.
Obama on any ballot for the office of President of the United States for the 2012
general election.
Grounds for this motion, as more fully set forth below, are that
Plaintiff/Appellant John Dummett is a competing candidate for the office of
President of the United States and as such Mr. Dummett would be irreparably
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 1 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
2/21
2 of 21
harmed by the Defendant/Appellees misrepresentations, which would result in the
unfair advantage of an ineligible candidate appearing on ballots for the office
sought by Mr. Dummett; more specifically, it is undisputed that Mr. Obamas
father was never a U.S. citizen and that the Supreme Court of the United States has
defined natural born citizen as a person with both parents being citizens at the
time of the natural born citizens birth, therefore Mr. Obama does not fulfill the
requirements of the U.S. Constitution to hold the office of President.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
A.IntroductionThe purpose of the instant motion is to prevent irreparable harm that will
occur due to the planned actions of Defendant/Appellees which they will take on
September 3, 2012, absent an order from this Court prohibiting said actions.
B.Requirements of FRAP 8(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii)On December 4, 2011, the Plaintiffs below filed a motion with the Arizona
District Court requesting identical relieve as is requested by the instant motion. (R.
9, Mot. Prelim. Inj.). Said motion was deemed moot, without comment, by the
District Courts entry of judgment against the Plaintiffs. (R. 42, Judgment).
The Arizona District Courts dismissal of the underlying lawsuit was
founded upon that Courts finding that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 2 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
3/21
3 of 21
the Defendant/Appellees. (See R.41, Or. Dismissing, at 15.) Under such
circumstances it is impractical to file the instant motion with the District Court
because any Court determining that it lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant
has also determined that it lacks authority to issue an injunction against said
defendant.
The Appellants will, in this memorandum, show that the District Courts
jurisdictional ruling is clear error.
C.BackgroundImmediately after the 2008 Democratic National Convention the Democratic
National Committee (hereinafter DNC) sent notices to all 50 secretaries of state
announcing that Barack Obama was the Democratic Partys candidate for the
office of President of the United States. (See Ex. 1). Without intervention from this
Court the DNC, Defendant/Appellees in the instant litigation, will again send
similar documents on or about September 3, 2012.
Election codes and procedures of the 50 states currently leave State election
officials dependent upon accurate and truthful representations from political parties
regarding the constitutional qualifications of candidates to hold Federal office.
Specifically, the 50 secretaries of state depend upon truthful representations by the
Democratic Party that the individual selected by the Party as its candidate for the
office of President of the United States is constitutionally qualified to hold said
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 3 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
4/21
4 of 21
office. When the secretaries of state receive a document from the Democratic Party
identifying the Partys candidate for President, the secretaries of state are
compelled to have that candidates name placed on ballots in all counties of their
state. It is well established that the function of the secretaries of state in this
capacity is ministerial; meaning that the secretaries have no authority to refuse
once the Democratic Party has delivered the required documents.
Because the Secretaries of State have no authority to scrutinize the
candidates qualifications to hold office, this procedure leaves the secretaries of
state, as well as any competing candidates, completely dependent upon a truthful
and accurate representation from the Democratic Party that their candidate is
qualified to hold the office of President of the United States.
The documents that the Defendant/Appellees intend to send to every
secretary of state next month will fraudulently or negligently misrepresent the
constitutional qualifications of candidate Barack Obama.
D.Standard for Preliminary InjunctionA plaintiff/appellant seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he
is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that
an injunction is in the public interest.Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (citations omitted).
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 4 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
5/21
5 of 21
E.Plaintiff/Appellants are Likely to Succeed on the Meritsi. District Courts Clear Error Regarding Personal
Jurisdiction
1. Standard of Review for Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofPersonal Jurisdiction
A district court's determination that it does not have personal jurisdiction is
reviewed de novo. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.
374 F.3d 797 (9th
Cir. 2004);Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068, 1071
(9th Cir.2001). Where the motion is based on written materials rather than an
evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of
jurisdictional facts. Id. In such cases, we only inquire into whether [the
plaintiff's] pleadings and affidavits make a prima facie showing of personal
jurisdiction. Caruth v. International Psychoanalytical Ass'n, 59 F.3d 126, 128
(9th Cir.1995). Although the plaintiff cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of
its complaint, Amba Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Jobar International, Inc., 551
F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir.1977), uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be
taken as true. AT & T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th
Cir.1996). Also, conflicts between parties over statements contained in affidavits
must be resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Id.; see Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v.
Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir.2000) ( Because the prima facie
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 5 of 21
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW12.07&pbc=4586E0AF&vr=2.0&docname=CIK%28LE00202639%29&lvbp=T&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=l&mt=73&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&db=BC-COMPANYSRBDhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW12.07&pbc=4586E0AF&vr=2.0&docname=CIK%28LE00202639%29&lvbp=T&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=l&mt=73&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&db=BC-COMPANYSRBDhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2001114364&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1071&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2001114364&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1071&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2001114364&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1071&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2001114364&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1071&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1995142452&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=128&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1995142452&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=128&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1995142452&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=128&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1995142452&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=128&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=350&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1977104466&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=787&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=350&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1977104466&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=787&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=350&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1977104466&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=787&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1996199161&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=588&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1996199161&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=588&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1996199161&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=588&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2000479809&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1087&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2000479809&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1087&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2000479809&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1087&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2000479809&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1087&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2000479809&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1087&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1996199161&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=588&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1996199161&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=588&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=350&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1977104466&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=787&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=350&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1977104466&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=787&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1995142452&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=128&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=1995142452&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=128&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2001114364&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1071&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=73&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2004646045&serialnum=2001114364&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F22344A4&referenceposition=1071&rs=WLW12.07http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW12.07&pbc=4586E0AF&vr=2.0&docname=CIK%28LE00202639%29&lvbp=T&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=l&mt=73&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD -
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
6/21
6 of 21
jurisdictional analysis requires us to accept the plaintiff's allegations as true, we
must adopt [the plaintiff's] version of events for purposes of this appeal.).
2.
Standard for Establishing Personal Jurisdiction
A plaintiffs allegations, taken as true, must show that a non-resident
defendant purposefully directed his activities toward the forum state, or
consummated some transaction with the forum state, or performed some act by
which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activity in the
forum state, or invokes the benefits and protections of the forum states laws. See
R.41, Or. Dismissing at 6; citing Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374
F.3d 797 (9th
Cir. 2004); See alsoHolland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc.,
485 F.3d 450, 460 (9th
Cir. 2007).
3. Plaintiffs Did Allege Activities Purposefully DirectedToward the Forum State AND Purposefully AvailingDefendants of the Privilege and Benefits of the Forum
States Laws
Plaintiffs complaint alleges that the Defendants intend to nominate Mr.
Obama as their nominee for the office of President of the United States for the
2012 general election. R.10, Second Amended Compl., at 8 & 51. And that the
Defendants intend to send documents to the Secretaries of State of all states
announcing that Mr. Obama is its Presidential nominee for the 2012 general
election and representing that he is qualified to hold the office of President. Id. at
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 6 of 21
http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW12.07&pbc=4586E0AF&vr=2.0&docname=CIK%28LE00202639%29&lvbp=T&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=l&mt=73&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&db=BC-COMPANYSRBDhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW12.07&pbc=4586E0AF&vr=2.0&docname=CIK%28LE00202639%29&lvbp=T&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=l&mt=73&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&db=BC-COMPANYSRBDhttp://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?rs=WLW12.07&pbc=4586E0AF&vr=2.0&docname=CIK%28LE00202639%29&lvbp=T&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&sv=Split&fn=_top&findtype=l&mt=73&returnto=BusinessNameReturnTo&db=BC-COMPANYSRBD -
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
7/21
7 of 21
9 & 52. And that Said documents will be signed by Defendant Schultz.Id. at
10. None of these facts have been disputed by the Defendants.
The District Court ruled that the Defendants act of sending a signed
certification that Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to hold the office of
President to the Arizona Secretary of State and asking that Obama be placed on
Arizona ballots pursuant to Arizona law is not sufficient to make the DNC
reasonably expect that they might be subject to Arizona law.R.41 at 9.
In order to reach this determination the District Court concluded that the act
of sending a single certification to the Arizona Secretary of State was more
analogous to taking out a national ad in a magazine, than it is to directing activities
toward the state of Arizona: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants will make a
representation to all fifty Secretaries of State and request that this Court take
judicial notice that Arizona is one of the states. However, an act national in scope,
not targeting any particular person or place, is insufficient to establish personal
jurisdiction. R.41 Or. Dismissing, at 9; citing Gordy v. Daily News, L.P., 95 F.3d,
829, 833 (9th
Cir. 1996).
The District Courts conclusion is clear error because the Arizona Secretary
of State is a specific person. The DNC is not sending an advertisement multiple
people in Arizona. It is sending a legal document to the Secretary of State of
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 7 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
8/21
8 of 21
Arizona. That document is asking the Secretary of State of Arizona to perform a
specific act on behalf of the DNC. That act requires the Secretary of State of
Arizona, a specific person, to perform specific acts that are set forth under Arizona
election law. That single certificate is a formal request by the Defendants to take
advantage of specific laws of the forum state.
The fact that the DNC is also sending similar certificates to 50 other
individual Secretaries of State does not make this act more analogous to taking out
an advertisement in a nationally circulated magazine. Such an ad is not directed to
any specific person. Such an ad is not directed to only one person in each state.
Such an ad does not create a legal obligation for the person reading it to perform a
ministerial duty under state law.
The fact that similar certifications will be sent to the other 49 secretaries of
state also fails to make the instant litigation similar to the facts of Gordy because
each of the other 49 certifications will be specifically directed to individuals,
specifically identified as respective secretaries of state for their respective states.
Advertisements do not do this because advertisements are not directed toward
specific individuals. The District Court recognized that this distinction was
important to its ruling. It stated: an act, national in scope, not targeting any
particular person or place, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. R.41
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 8 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
9/21
9 of 21
Or. Dismissing, at 9 (emphasis added); citing Gordy, 95 F.3d, at 833. However, the
Arizona Secretary of State is a specific person. His office is located at a specific
location. The Defendants activities are directed toward him, in his official
capacity as a high ranking Arizona officer. See R.10, Second Amended Compl., at
9 & 52.
This issue will be more fully briefed in Appellants primary appeal brief.
However, it is clear that the District Courts ruling is flawed. No reasonable person
would send a signed certification that asserts a specific fact to a top state official,
and asks that state official to spend tax payer dollars based upon the assertion of
fact, and would still reasonably expect that they couldnt be hailed into court in
that state if their assertion of fact turned out to be fraud.
The Plaintiff/Appellants are likely to prevail on their appeal.
ii. Substance of the Case BelowIt is undisputed that President Obamas father was never a U.S. citizen.1 This
fact has been admitted by Mr. Obama in his bookDreams From My Father, has
1Hereinafter this memorandum will refer to President Obama, also known as
Barack Hussein Obama Jr., BarackObama II, and Barry Soetoro, as Mr. Obama.
This reference is not intended to be disrespectful to the office of the President or to
the individual Barack Obama. It is used only to identify the individual, separate
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 9 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
10/21
10 of 21
been confirmed in statements by the U.S. State Department, and is reflected on the
birth certificate published by the White House and claimed by the President as his
birth certificate. Mr. Obama has never contested the fact that his father was never a
U.S. Citizen.
The U.S. Supreme Court has defined natural-born citizens as all children
born in a country of parents who were its citizens. See Minor v. Happersett, 88
U.S. 162, 167 (1875)(emphasis added). The Court in Minordid go on to state that
other sub-categories of people may or may not be within the broader term
citizen, however it did so only after specifically identifying the narrower
category natural-born citizens.Id. The Minor Court clearly understood and
established that citizen is a much broader term than natural-born citizens. Its
discussion of citizen does not negate or alter its earlier definition of the term
natural-born citizens.SeeId. at 167-168.
Because it is undisputed that Mr. Obamas father was not a U.S. citizen, Mr.
Obama can never be a natural-born citizen, as that term was defined by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Therefore, Mr. Obama cannot meet the Constitutional
requirements to hold the office of President. See U.S. Const. Art. II Section 1.2
from the office, to emphasize that Mr. Obama has not yet won his campaign for a
second term, and to simplify communication for purposes of this memo.2 Mr. Obamas place of birth is completely irrelevant to this conclusion. This
motion makes no assertion regarding Mr. Obamas place of birth.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 10 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
11/21
11 of 21
It is also undisputed that the Defendant/Appellees intend to nominate Mr.
Obama as the Democratic nominee for the office of President of the United States
in the 2012 general election. Said nomination requires the Defendant/Appellees to
send documents to the secretaries of state of all states announcing that Mr. Obama
is the Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party in the 2012 general election
and representing that he is qualified to hold the office of President.
Because Mr. Obama is not a natural-born citizen, as defined by the Supreme
Court, and because the Defendant/Appellees are aware of all undisputed facts and
definitions set forth herein, any representation by the Defendant/Appellees that Mr.
Obama is Constitutionally-qualified to hold the office of President would be
negligent misrepresentation or fraud.
1. TheMinorCourts Definition of Natural Born Citizenis Binding Precedent
A simple reading ofMinor v. Happersettmakes it is clear that the Supreme
Court defined natural born citizen, as it appears in article II of the Constitution,
as part of its holding. 88 U.S. 162, 167-8 (1875). TheMinorCourts definition of
natural-born citizen is binding precedent and has not been abrogated by the dicta
from Wong Kim Ark (WKA) or any other subsequent Supreme Court precedent.
Any language to the contrary from subsequent Supreme Court opinions is purest
dicta. Any rulings from other courts are simply incorrect. Unless and until the U.S.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 11 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
12/21
12 of 21
Supreme Court revisits this issue in a case that factually presents the issue, the
MinorCourts definition is binding.
2. TheMinorCourts Definition of NBC was Part of itsHolding and is, Therefore, Binding Precedent
In order to reach its holding, the MinorCourt first had to establish that Mrs.
Minor was a citizen. It explicitly did so by determining that she was a natural born
citizen: For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
[Referring to the doubts regarding the broader term citizen.] It is sufficient for
everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within
the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.Id. at 167. In other words, all natural born
citizens are also part of the broader category, citizens.
Because both of Mrs. Minors parents were U.S. citizens at the time she was
born, and she was born in the U.S., she was a natural born citizen. Because all
natural born citizens are also within the broader category citizen, Mrs. Minor
was a citizen. This is why the Court did not need to resolve doubts about the outer
limits of the term citizen. Mrs. Minor was a citizen because she was clearly within
the narrower category of natural-born citizen.
The Minor Courts decision to establish that Mrs. Minor was a citizen
because she was a natural born citizen followed the well-established doctrine of
judicial restraint. Judicial restraint required the MinorCourt to avoid interpreting
the citizenship clause of the 14th
Amendment if the circumstances presented in the
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 12 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
13/21
13 of 21
case at hand did not require the Court to construe the 14th
amendments citizenship
clause in order to reach its holding. The facts presented did not require such an
interpretation, so the Court did not reach the 14thamendments citizenship clause.
But this restraint did require the Court to conclude that Mrs. Minor was a citizen
via its definition of natural-born citizen and its conclusion that all natural-born
citizens are within the broader category of citizens. This is why the Minorcourt
made the statement For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these
doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children
born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. Id. at 168.
In other words, the Minor Courts definition of natural born citizen was
pivotal to reaching its holding.3
The Court then discussed several other types of citizenship as general
examples of its conclusion that women could be citizens. However, it then returned
to the specific case of Mrs. Minor, concluding: The fourteenth amendment did not
affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular,
therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has
3The MinorCourt also used this method of establishing that Mrs. Minor was a
citizen because the term natural born citizen was well established at the time. This
is why the Minor Court said It has never been doubted before giving its
definition of natural born citizen. See 88 U.S. 167. This is another example of the
MinorCourt following the doctrine of judicial restraint by using a well-established
term rather than establishing a new definition for the broader term citizen.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 13 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
14/21
14 of 21
always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizenship.Id. at 170.
Because theMinorCourts definition of natural born citizen was pivotal to
reaching its holding, the Courts definition is part of its holding and is, therefore,
also precedent. SeeBlacks Law Dictionary 737 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 7th
ed., West
1999) (holding, n. 1. A courts determination of a matter pivotal to its decision);
(see also Id. at 1195 defining precedent and quoting James Parker Hall,
American Law and Procedure xlviii (1952); see alsoBlacks Law Dictionary at
465, distinguishing dictum gratis: A courts discussion of points or questions
not raised by the record or its suggestion of rules not applicable in the case at
bar.).
3. Dicta from Wong Kim Ark Cannot Alter PrecedentfromMinor
TheMinorCourt did not leave open the question of the definition of natural-
born citizen as that term is used in Article II. It did, however, leave open the scope
of the broader term citizen as that term is used in the 14th
Amendment. This is
the question that the WKA Court addressed. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169
U.S. 649, 653 & 705 (1898). The WKA Courts holding is clearly identified by
that Court as its holding. Its holding is very fact specific and limited to determining
the scope of the term citizen under the 14th
Amendment, notnatural born citizen
under Article II.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 14 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
15/21
15 of 21
WKA involved a person born in the U.S. to parents that were both non-
citizens. The facts of WKA simply did not provide the WKA Court with an
opportunity to re-visit Article IIs natural-born citizen. Dicta cannot abrogate
precedent. SeeBlacks Law Dictionary 465 (Bryan A. Garner e., 7th
ed., West
1999)(defining Dictum Gratis). Therefore, WKA cannot abrogate the definition of
Article II natural-born citizen fromMinor.
A contrary reading ofMinorand WKA also violates venerable doctrines of
constitutional construction established in Marbury v. Madison and judicial
restraint, as well as language from the Minor Court establishing that the 14th
Amendment did not create any new privileges and immunities. See 5 U.S. 137, 174
(1805); Minor, 88 U.S. at 171. Interpreting the 14th
Amendment in a way that
allows a person with two foreign parents to qualify for the office of President
would clearly have created a new privilege. Yet the MinorCourt explicitly stated
that the 14th
Amendment created no new constitutional privileges. Minor,88 U.S.
at 171. The MinorCourt had to reach this issue because it was determining Mrs.
Minors privileges under the 14th
Amendment. However, Mr. Ark was not
attempting to run for President, nor did the WKA Courts decision require it to re -
visit the definition of Article II natural born citizen for any other reason. Therefore,
any statement from the WKA Court that could possibly be interpreted to alter
Article II, is purest dicta.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 15 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
16/21
16 of 21
This reading ofMinor and WKA respect the foundational principals of
constitutional construction and legal interpretation. This reading ofMinor and
WKA leave these two Supreme Court opinions in harmony because these cases
were answering different questions regarding different aspects of the Constitution.
4. The Ankeny Court Established that it LackedJurisdiction to Rule on the Instant Issue
Several state courts and administrative agencies have erroneously ruled that
Wong Kim ArkoverturnedMinors definition of natural born citizen. However, to
Appellants knowledge all such decisions rely heavily upon the non-binding
Indiana State Appellate Court opinion, Ankeny v. Governor. 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009). A cursory reading of theAnkeny opinion should lead any court to
immediately recognize the disturbing errors and apparent political motivation of
that opinion.
Ankeny was a challenge brought by pro-se litigants in Indiana against that
states Governor. Id. at 679. While litigation by pro-se parties certainly does not,
by itself, negate the value of an opinion, it certainly should raise some concerns.
Most pro-se litigants cannot be expected to present courts with fully researched
and briefed arguments in support of their constitutional assertions. Additionally,
the Defendant inAnkeny was a sitting Governor with all the resources of the state
at his disposal. Id. This picture explains the very one-sided presentation of the
issues and the ultimate result inAnkeny.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 16 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
17/21
17 of 21
Much more striking, however, is the fact that theAnkeny Court admitted that
the plaintiff lacked standing. Id. at 684. Since the plaintiff lacked standing, the
Ankeny Court lacked jurisdiction to reach any substantive issue presented. Yet after
reaching this conclusive finding, the Ankeny court took it upon itself to construe
Article II of the U.S. Constitution. While a court may use alternative means to
reach a holding, it should not construe the U.S. Constitution to do so. Lyng v.
Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439, 445-46 (1988)
(A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that
courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of
deciding them.). Judicial restraint requires all courts to avoid construing any
clause of the Constitution if avoiding such construction is at all possible. Id. By
pushing forward to give its opinion on the meaning of Article II, afterruling that it
lacked jurisdiction in the case, theAnkeny Court ignored judicial restraint, ignored
rules of constitutional construction, ignored direct precedent from the Supreme
Court, and ignored the Article III constitutional limits on its own authority.
In other words, the Ankeny Courts decision to reach the constitutional
question demonstrates that Courts failure to understand the most bas ic doctrines
applied by the Supreme Court when construing the Constitution. With this fact in
mind, theAnkenyCourts opinion regarding the meaning of Article II and the 14th
Amendment should be avoided at all costs by any other court.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 17 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
18/21
18 of 21
F. Absent the Requested Relief Plaintiff/Appellants will beIrreparably Harmed
Plaintiff/Appellant John Dummett is a candidate for the office of President,
competing with candidate Obama for that office. Candidate Dummett, therefore,
has standing to challenge the constitutional qualifications of candidate Obama. See
Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 782-3 (9th
Cir. 2011) (This notion of competitive
standing has been recognized by several circuits.); citing Hollander v. McCain,
566 F.Supp.2d 63, 68 (D.N.H. 2008); Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d
582, 586-87 & n.4 (5th
Cir.2006); and Schulz v. Williams, 44 F.3d 48, 53 (2nd
Cir.
1994).
Absent this Courts grant of the requested relief, candidate Dummett will be
irreparably harmed by the Defendant/Appellees misrepresentations that Mr.
Obama is constitutionally-qualified to hold the office of President. Said
misrepresentations would cause Mr. Obamas name to appear on ballots for the
office of President, despite the fact that Mr. Obama is not constitutionally-qualified
to hold said office. Such an appearance on ballots would reduce the number of
votes obtained by candidate Dummett for the same office, and would call into
question the validity of such an election.
Because the timing of Presidential elections is critical to the outcome, the
harm described could not be corrected by any means.
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 18 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
19/21
19 of 21
G.The Balance of Equities Weighs Heavily in Favor of thePlaintiff/Appellants
This motion would require the Defendant/Appellees to refrain from asserting
a fact on behalf of Mr. Obama that is in clear contradiction to Mr. Obamas own
assertions. This is not a heavy burden.
On the other side of the balance of equities, allowing the
Defendant/Appellees to make factual misrepresentations to 50 Secretaries of State
would result in a flawed or invalid U.S. Presidential election. This result would
cause irreparable harm to Mr. Dummett, to all Americans, and to the validity of the
U.S. Constitution.
H.Public Interest Supports Granting the Requested InjunctionThe secretaries of state for the 50 states perform their duties for the benefit
of the citizens of their respective states. A gross misrepresentation of fact,
perpetrated by the Defendant/Appellees upon the 50 States, would cause profound
harm to the public. Such an act amounts to perpetrating a gross misrepresentation
upon each and every American voter. The public interest is obviously served by
prohibiting such a clear misrepresentation of fact and preventing a flawed
Presidential election to occur.
Further, the issue presented by this motion represents a more profound
question: Will the Federal Courts of this nation enforce the most basic
requirements of the U.S. Constitution? This motion relies upon uncontested facts
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 19 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
20/21
20 of 21
and a Supreme Court-defined term. Public trust in the judicial branch, in separation
of powers, and in the authority of the Constitution will be greatly enhanced by
granting the instant motion and greatly harmed by denying this motion.
I. Relief SoughtThe Plaintiff/Appellants request an order prohibiting the
Defendant/Appellees from issuing any letters, certificates, or other document to
any Secretary of State of any state, any agent thereof, or any other official of any
state, indicating that Mr. Obama is qualified to hold the office of President or that
the Democratic Party has selected Mr. Obama as its Presidential candidate, or
requesting that any state place the name of Mr. Obama on any ballot for the office
of President of the United States for the 2012 general election.
Respectfully submitted on this the 26th
Day of Av, in the year of our Lord
2012 (a.k.a. August 15, 2012).
_s/Van R. Irion_________________
Van R. Irion (TNBPR#024519)
Liberty Legal Foundation
9040 Executive Park Drive, Ste. 200
Attorney for Plaintiff/appellants
(423) 208-9953
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 20 of 21
-
7/31/2019 2012-08-15 (9th CIR) - LLF, et al. v DNC, et al. - APPELLANT Motion for Preliminary Injunction
21/21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that on 26th
Day of Av, Year of our Lord 2012 (a.k.a.
August 15, 2012), a copy of Appellants Motion forPreliminary Injunction was
filed electronically. Parties may access this filing through the Courts electronic
filing system.
_s/Van R. Irion_________________
Van R. Irion
Liberty Legal Foundation
9040 Executive Park Drive, Ste. 200
Attorney for Plaintiff/appellants
(423) 208-9953
Case: 12-16729 08/15/2012 ID: 8287770 DktEntry: 4-1 Page: 21 of 21